Text Size

President-elect Barack Obama did not employ lobbyists on his campaign, but they can assist with his transition as long as they de-register as lobbyists and their activities do not cross into policy areas they have tried to influence.

Carrying over the anti-lobbying tenets that defined the campaign, Obama transition chief John Podesta announced Tuesday that the president-elect would enforce what he called “the strictest, the most far-reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.”

There is no blanket ban on lobbyists, but they will not be able to do transition work in their area of expertise if they lobbied in the past 12 months, nor can they lobby the administration for 12 months afterward on matters on which they worked during the transition.

“I’ve heard the other complaint, which is we’re leaving all this expertise on the side, because we’re leaving all the people who know everything out in the cold. And so be it,” Podesta told reporters at the transition office in Washington. “That’s a commitment that the American public expects … and it’s one that we intend to enforce during the transition, I know he intends to enforce in his government, so that the undue influence of Washington lobbyists and the revolving door of Washington ceases to exist.”

Podesta made the announcement at the first formal briefing of the Obama transition, an operation that he said spans Washington and Chicago, employs 450 individuals, and works from a budget of $12 million — half of which was appropriated by Congress and half of which will be acquired from individual donors. Just as during the campaign, Obama will not accept money from political action committees, lobbyists or corporations.

Podesta suggested that Cabinet-level appointments may not come until after Thanksgiving, citing historical precedent that no president since John F. Kennedy has made such announcements until December. “We’re going to try to accelerate that, but we’ll make announcements when we’re ready to make them,” Podesta said, adding that they would most likely occur in Chicago, where Obama is living during the transition.

The transition team will send review teams Monday into 100 federal agencies to gather information that Obama needs “to make strategic policy, budgetary and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration,” Podesta said.

The names of review team members will be disclosed by the end of the week, as part of what Podesta said would be the “most open and transparent transition in history.”

Podesta reiterated that Obama will steer clear of the Bush administration’s global financial summit this weekend, saying there is only one president at a time and “it’s not appropriate for, you know, two people to show up at this meeting.”

The president-elect and the vice president-elect have both rejected requests to sit down with world leaders attending the summit. But the transition team is arranging meetings among representatives and “we’ll be kept informed both in advance of the meeting and, I’m sure, what takes place during the course of the meeting,” Podesta said.

As for the composition of the Cabinet, Podesta said Obama will make more than “token-level” appointments of Republicans and independents.

“I think his commitment is to deepen that,” Podesta said, “and to look even just beyond the Cabinet, to try to bring people who agree with the direction that he wants to take the country, and regardless of party, to serve in the government.”

Following similar comments made earlier in the day by White House press secretary Dana Perino, Podesta took issue with news reports characterizing the Oval Office conversation Monday between Bush and Obama as one of quid pro quos on the economic stimulus package, the aid to automakers and the Colombia free trade agreement.

“While the topic of Colombia came up, there was no quid pro quo in the conversation,” Podesta said. “The president didn’t link Colombia to the question of an economic recovery package going forward.”

Podesta, who spoke with White House chief of staff Josh Bolten on Tuesday, said there were no hard feelings between the White House and the Obama transition teams.

“When we have a disagreement, we know how to pick up the phone and talk to one another,” Podesta said.

Readers' Comments (18)

While its popular to bash all lobbyists, many of them are experts in their fields (ie...medicine, research, alternative energy, etc) and provide a valuable service to congressmen and their staffs. I'm not saying ALL lobbyists are honorable nor am I saying that many of them aren't self-serving, greedy SOBs (especially the banking/credit card industry ones)...BUT I FEAR congress will lose a very valuable source of "free" expertise and will be hard-pressed to get speedy, reliable, cogent, information on specific issues (esp. since their staffs are undermanned)...and nothing will get done in a timely manner. Then again, that might be a good thing.

Lobbying for profit has become a re-allocation of taxpayers money to politicians in the form of donations and under the table cash. In it's current form it only diverts taxpayer money away from were it is needed and allows irresponsible politicians to stay in power at the taxpayers expense. The "expertise" provided by lobbyists is not worth the billions in tax dollars spent on it.

"Strictest ethics rules"? Does this include keeping a private conversation in the Oval Office between President Bush and the President-Elect from being leaked to the national media? Obama bellowed about CHANGE and no more of the "old politics".He apparently didn`t brief his new Chief of Staff to keep his mouth shut,although we all know that Emmanuel leaked like a sieve working for Clinton.

• Delay the end of analog "TV as usual" or face viewer wrath come February

GET POLITICAL w/ VIC LIVINGSTON

As President-Elect Obama concentrates on tackling the America’s economic crisis, a hi-tech cultural crisis that could enrage millions looms on the video horizon.

Despite clear warning signs that millions of TV households aren’t ready, the Federal Communications Commission is moving forward to enforce a law that requires broadcast stations to permanently turn off so-called “analog” signals on February 17, 2009, to be replaced with a new digital "DTV" technology that most stations already have up and running.

If that cut-off date holds, only those who are equipped with recent-model digital TVs or government-subsidized digital-to-analog set-top converter boxes will be able to continue to receive free, over-the-air television.

(Those who buy cable or satellite TV, and are willing to pay extra to receive high-definition broadcast channels they otherwise could get over the air for free, don’t have to worry about the analog signal shut-off.)

But antenna-dependent analog set viewers who fail to upgrade their equipment will wake up to nothing but snow and static on the morning of February 18th -- unless lawmakers and regulators come to their senses and delay the “death of analog” until the public is truly ready for the digital switchover.

DTV TAXPAYER BILLIONS ALREADY SPENT

The government has spent billions of dollars to subsidize the cost of those set-top converters, and millions more on advertising to make public aware of the so-called “digital TV transition.” But the Nielsen TV ratings company estimates that nearly 9 million TV households -- almost half of those who depend on over-the-air signals to get their TV -- have yet to purchase either a new digital set, or a set-top converter box.

(U.S. government-issued coupons good for $40 off the typical $60 selling price are available on request. Officials say about 60 percent of households with only analog sets have requested coupons, limited to two per family.)

Among the most “unready” viewers are people who cannot easily adapt to the changing TV landscape -- the poor, the elderly, people who don’t understand English (mainly, those of Hispanic descent), or simply those who just can’t get with the program -- the “technically challenged.”

Technological differences between digital and analog signals compound the situation. Digital signals are capable of providing a crystal-clear picture in full high-definition on high-def sets -- but signals are not as robust in fringe reception areas as old-fashioned analog.

In fringe areas, older analog sets still can receive a weak signal -- degraded by “ghosting” and “snow,” but still viewable. Digital signals, however, suffer from what’s termed the “cliff effect.” At the outer edges of a station’s signal “footprint,” the digital picture may suddenly dissolve into colored blocks that resemble an impressionist painting, and then go to black -- no picture at all.

SNOW AND STATIC FOR VIEWERS WHO WAIT?

Many viewers who can get a decent analog picture won’t know if they can receive full digital service until they actually get a digital set or install a converter box. If people who live in fringe signal areas wait until the last minute, they may find they’re unable to receive digital TV with their existing antenna. Those who receive adequate signals with indoor “rabbit ears” may discover that they need a roof-top antenna to receive all of the channels they got before.

Yet the industry’s advertising campaign has made scant mention of the antenna issue. That means many people still watching on analog sets may not realize they may have to install a roof-top antenna, or re-aim their old antenna, to continue to receive all available broadcast channels.

If the death of analog TV service isn’t pushed back, “there’s going to be an outcry like you’ve never seen,” predicts Michael Silbergleid, veteran television trade journal editor and writer. “Within a week of the shut-off, I predict that Congress will meet in an emergency session to reverse the decision.”

So why don’t regulators and the TV industry stave off a public relations nightmare and postpone the analog shut-off? Silbergleid notes that the end of analog has been pushed back before -- and that the government has invested a lot of taxpayer money in the converter coupon program and the DTV transition information campaign.

More delay, he says, could prompt criticism that the DTV transition program has turned into a wasteful boondoggle. “So they’re just hoping it works out.”

SMARTER TO TAKE IT SLOW?

Silbergleid thinks it would have been wiser to do the DTV transition more gradually, with analog shut-off put off for as long as another decade -- or at least until Aug. 31, 2011, which is the Canadian target date for analog shut-off. The tech writer also criticizes government regulators for adopting DTV signal transmission standards that aren’t as powerful and robust as the system now in use in Europe.

But Broadcasting & Cable magazine says that U.S. regulators and industry officials insist that the February deadline will stick -- despite widespread acknowledgment that many antenna-dependent viewers may be caught with their reception down.

Get Political believes that this state of digital TV affairs cannot stand. It’s not the public’s fault that many consumers aren’t ready; in our opinion, it’s a failure on the part of those who devised and executed the digital transition.

We predict that once officials of the incoming Obama administration get a clearer picture of the viewer chaos that would ensue with a sudden shutdown of “television as usual," it’s likely they’ll reverse course -- either by executive order or by a hastily-arranged Congressional vote.

WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER?

Not as long as government-supported extrajudicial "vigilante injustice" squads are "gang stalking" American citizens, making a mockery of the rule of law:

It would be wise for the Obama adminisration to shun any lobbyist. This is what he professed during his campaign and he will be held accountable. Any relations with lobbyist's in any form would be viewed as more of the same. Personaly I think Lobbyist's should be banned from Washington all together.

you are so disgusting!!! It was hard working people like myself, whose husband is deployed right now, for your right to spew your non-sense on this sight that donated 5, 10, 20 dollars to senator obama's campaign b/c of his vision and non-divisive tactics. John McCain lost b/c he stood for nothing he was just against obama, he had no plans, no ideas, and hopefully you will wake up and realize that. I am very insulted that you would call our new president names. I pray that he will be a faboulous president. which god willing he will be. you need to check your facts, before you spew non-sense oh wait that would take too much effort and brain power, you would rather watch the hate network FIX NEWS, what a joke or listen to race baiters like rush, hannity, etc. Change is going to happen whether you like it or not, you can either get inolved or get swept away by it. BLUE STAR FAMILIES FOR OBAMA-PRO MILITARY PRO-OBAMA !!! OH FYI..GUESS WHO HAS A BETTER RECORD WHEN IT COMES TO SUPPORTING THE VETERANS AND VETERAN ISSUES..YEAH NOT JOHN MCCAIN, AS A MILITARY SPOUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST REASONS TO SUPPORT PRESIDENT OBAMA. HIS GRADE WAS A B, AND JOHN MCCAIN WAS A PATHETIC D....SO AS YOU SPILL YOUR LIES EDUCATION!!EDUCATION!!!YOU SEEM TO NEED A LOT OF IT!!!!

hahah ethics ... they have no ethics.... starting off paying off the auto union for thier fat retirements at 50 .... for me as I dump my 401k before they get that to, I will not ever buy a car from a company that takes a taxpayer buy out... let they them rot with the other socialist..

Whenever I turn on the evening news these I feel as though I'm walking into a doctor's office. It wasn't too many years ago that I recall watching the nightly news (whether on CBS, ABC or NBC) and not seeing a single ad for some type of prescription medication. Those were the days, now every time I tune in I feel as though I'm braving a gauntlet of disturbing messages on bladder control issues, stomach distress, cholesterol management and worse. Thank goodness for public TV and Jim Lehrer - at there's one place I can still watch the news and not ponder my own mortality or entrance into middle age.

Perhaps the concentration of ads on the nightly news programs indicate the changing demographics of the folks who are still left watching those programs, which perhaps doesn't bode too well for the future of network news programming in the traditional sense. The pivotal year in the evolution of what has now become a nightly routine was 1997, that's when the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) shifted its policies regarding the advertising of prescription medication. It is perhaps ironic that Clinton Administration which was elected based upon the promise of Healthcare reform helped to oversee one of the most damaging single healthcare decisions of the past century.

Was the decision that bad, really, worse than cigarettes? Well, yes it was - and not just because it is so annoying to watch either. Consider for a moment that the entire concept of the FDA evolved directly as a response to dubious medical advertising. The 1997 decision represented one of the most problematic deregulations of the healthcare industry to date. Let's examine why this decision was problematic:

Prescription medication by its very nature is designed to tackle one particular problem, over-emphasis on marketing of unique solutions out of the overall patient context leads to inevitable problems with treatment. A huge percentage of this nation's quality of care issues up to and including unnecessary patient deaths (still about 100,000 per year) are tied to problems with medication. Media marketing to create consumer demand for "silver-bullet" cures creates unwanted pressure on practitioners to prescribe medicines that patients don't need, which ultimately becomes a health risk in itself (either in the short-term or the long-term). The arbitrary focus on prescription medication tends to exclude more rational or reasonable treatment options, such as diet and exercise. The drug marketing 'environment' creates problematic conflicts of interests at all levels of the healthcare system. There is a lopsided amount of capital invested in pharmaceutical research when compared with the rest of the healthcare industry. Also, the pharmaceutical industry's spiraling costs (partially connected to the massive research investments) have been a perennial factor in health insurance cost increases and benefit reductions.

The cost / benefit ratio associated with a healthcare system that is disproportionately focused on seeking ever higher profit growth in new and existing prescription medications has negatively impacted the entire healthcare industry.

One simple way to begin correcting this is to place an immediate ban on all advertising for prescription medication. This was not before and is not now a violation of first amendment rights - it is a public health imperative.

This week we also witnessed a highly disturbing new trend in the nightly drug news saga. A major pharmaceutical company was able to announce the findings of new drug study to at least two of the networks (NBC, CBS) as a lead story on the evening news. The study on Crestor, conducted, paid for and released by the company that owns Crestor, claimed that the cholesterol lowering statin would also prevent heart attacks in more than 5 million people who didn't even have high cholesterol. The author of the study actually holds the patent on the drug. The study, which was supposed to run for 5 years, was cut short after 2 years supposedly due to its wild success.

Well, last time I checked, promoting your own product as news represented a serious ethical dilemma and a real conflict of interest. Worse than that though, the notion that any long-term study considerations aren't worth examining before extending this treatment to millions of new patients is nothing less than insane. The fact that this may cost our healthcare system another $10 billion a year ought to be considered problematic as well (all of the proceeds going to the study's sponsor and author).

Both the CBS Evening News and NBC ought to retract their almost gushing endorsement and do some actual journalism, their integrity and our healthcare system are at stake.

I hope Barack Obama remembered to thank George Bush on behalf of his illegal alien aunt this week. The lame-duck Republican president did the Democratic president-elect a generous — and dangerous — favor right before Election Day: Putting politics above homeland security, the Bush administration ordered immigration authorities across the country to halt all deportation enforcement actions until after the campaign season was over.

According to my sources, the Bush administration issued a 72-hour cease-and-desist order to all fugitive apprehension teams to spare Obama embarrassment over his Kenyan half-aunt, Zeituni Onyango. The Associated Press had reported on Nov. 1 that Onyango was a deportation evader – one of an estimated 700,000 illegal alien absconders who have ignored orders from immigration judges to leave the country. The wire report mentioned that the Department of Homeland Security distributed “an unusual nationwide directive within Immigrations and Customs Enforcement requiring any deportations prior to Tuesday’s election to be approved at least at the level of ICE regional directors.”

But the politicized order was even worse than the AP reported. The deportation process wasn’t simply slowed down for public relations reasons and fear of a media backlash. The process was completely frozen.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement source familiar with Western field offices told me: “The ICE fugitive operations group throughout the U.S. was told to stand down until after the election from arresting or transporting anyone out of the U.S. This was done to avoid any mistakes of deporting or arresting anyone who could have a connection to the election, i.e., anyone from Kenya who could be a relative. The decision was election-driven.”

Another source close to ICE operations in a southern California field office confirmed that immigration officials there received the same directive: “The reason they included all offices in the US was to show that they were not targeting the district Office where Aunti lived. They don’t want to pick her up by mistake and cause a big problem.”

In other words, the Bush Department of Homeland Security determined that protecting Barack Obama from the negative publicity surrounding a potential arrest of his illegal alien aunt was more important to the general welfare of the country than tracking down untold numbers of deportation absconders who received an extra three-day pass last week. DHS refuses to comment publicly about the case. Warped homeland security priorities are bipartisan. Democrat Rep. John Conyers has called for an immediate investigation – not into the rank politicizing of our deportation policies, but into who leaked Onyango’s deportation fugitive status to the press.

Question: Why shouldn’t this information be public?

As for President-elect Obama, his true views about ICE are well-known. Despite telling Katie Couric that his aunt should be required to follow the law because “We’re a nation of laws…I’m a strong believer you have to obey the law,” Obama scolded ICE agents who do their jobs for “terrorizing” communities.

Onyango arrived in the U.S. in 2000 on a temporary visa. Her asylum request was rejected in 2004. She defied the immigration court order to go back to Kenya, moved into Boston public housing, and is now hiding with relatives in Cleveland while contemplating how to extend her illegal stay. ..Question: Will an Obama White House reinstate the deportation enforcement freeze in Ohio? Wouldn’t want to “terrorize” the community...(Meanwhile, real terrorists have benefited enormously from lax enforcement of deportation orders and asylum loopholes. Ramzi Yousef, Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, and Mir Aimal Kansi all exploited our catch-and-release system by invoking asylum and evading swamped authorities before plotting and executing jihadist attacks.)

Onyango’s options, like those of hundreds of thousands of deportation fugitives like her, are wide open. With the help of a seasoned immigration lawyer, she can take another bite at the judicial apple and appeal her deportation order. She can take her case all the way to the Supreme Court. She can find an illegal alien sanctuary church to give her refuge. Or she can take advantage of the longstanding congressional practice of creating “special relief” bills to help individual deportation fugitives escape punishment and acquire U.S. citizenship.(michellemalkin.com for more on this horrifying story)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Nancy and Harry said this same stuff as they were wearing hip boots with large shovels in their hands. Democrats and Liberals are not known for honesty in government - just look around at the cities and states run by liberals - Chicago, Oakland, Illinois, California, New Jersey, New York - they are all in some sort of disarray.

Now we have Podesta, not know for his accuracy in words, telling us how honest he is. Seems like OJ Simpson said the same thing.

Lobbyists are bad - but we need the money and will wink as they help us out on other projects. They will be rewarded later. Harry Reid has four kids milking the Senate as lobbyists. Harry can trade them off to other Senators like Biden in exchange for being lobbied by Bidens kid. Just one big happy family with a treasury to empty.

Amex now has their finger in the lobby pie - the auto workers want their pensions funded, Schwartzenkennedy has put California on the road to Bankruptcy and New York wants a bailout.

You people are soooo predictable. I thought that maybe you would give the guy a chance and say that he is doing a good thing when a good thing like this is done. But, no, some of you retards just want to bellyache and complain. Do you want lobbyists leeching off of Washington indefinately, or do you want a Prez. that will leave them out in the street? You morons decide what will make you happy, and then respond accordingly. Limbaugh and Hannity won't always be there to tell you how to think on issues, especially nobrainers like this one.

When Americans participate in the electoral process donating 5, 10, 20 and 200 dollars it adds up to $700M for Obama. I am glad that he remembers where his power came from, the American people and not corporate lobbyists. This is the first campaign promise he kept, of curbing lobbyists in Washington DC. Some lobbyists maybe good intentioned and mean well however most of them pander to the highest bidder, whether it is about Indian Gaming Casinos or deregulation of financial institutions. Lobbyist will bemoan on losing out our ability to tap into their expertise. That is a hollow argument if I ever see one. United States may be broke but it still retains the intellectual wealth of the world, we have more Universities and people with Phds and Nobel Prize winners than any country, the transition team can always seek their counsel, after all they have devoted their life and academic career on such subject matter. Some people argue that 12 months is not enough time. I think it is a start, 12 months to prevent influence and allow a policy to gestate and mature is a reasonable call. A policy can turn so wrong or brilliant and to borrow a phrase from the abhorrent pro-life movement, at least you allow it to be born. Politicians sell Washington to the corporations and lobbyist to be elected in office, along with that sale goes our future and our children's future and the type of country they will inherit. We remember too well when George Bush and the GOP sold all of the US to corporate greed. We are now reaping the rewards of such rapacious action. Today and this election we the American people are buying back our country. This first step in sending out a message that the Obama administrations priority is the American people first.

This article is a bunch of crap! Barry has NO ethics at all so I don't see him enforcing these rules. Barry can do anything he wants and get away with it. He's never questioned on anything he says or does. We are about to enter into 4 years of pure hell that will be created by Barry, Reid and Pelosi and it will all get blamed on GW!!